Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 18 Posted (8 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2232 times:
Hi guys.
Apparantly some airlines use small bizjets to help train their pilots. I find this pretty interesting.
What type of training do airline pilots do in a bizjet like the Learjet 45 which has a maximum takeoff weight of just over 20,000 pounds to help prepare them to fly a monster like a 747-4 with a max takeoff weight of over 800,000 pounds?
Imagine training in this so you can end up flying this!
A website I found (which I can't link) says this about their Cathay Pacific Learjet 45's.
The Learjet 45's role is to help train Second Officers progressing to the rank of First Officer and for First Officers progressing to the rank of Captain."
The Learjet 45 has a normal crusing speed of 441 to 457 kts (depending on the source of info) and has a max certified altitude of 51,000 feet. So the learjet can cruise with the big guys, but when it comes to taking off and landing, what type of training would these airline pilots be doing?
Here's one type of training that's done at altitude ..... "Emergency Decent Practice".
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
One of aviation's little secrets is the larger the airplane the easier it is to fly. Large transport category aircraft, as a rule, have a tendency to be quite stable in all axis and their sheer mass means that once you've got your desired speed established it usually doesn't take a lot to keep it in the ballpark. They're much easier to fly than your typical light piston-powered airplane which, at times, can be quite challenging to fly - like herding puppies.
Actually bizjets often have higher performance than what you find in airline equipment. We tend to operate at least at higher flight levels and at slightly higher speeds than most main-line airline equipment. The pilot demands are very comparable. As Skipper said in one of his posts on a different thread, for most experienced jet pilots, the biggest problem encountered in transitioning into a 747 is learning how to taxi the beast. An ILS is an ILS, a go around is a go around, etc. Rick767 probably said it best a while back - "you fly a little airplane, you operate a big one."
Using small high-performance bizjets is an economical way to airlines to conduct certain phases of their flight training program.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7086 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2187 times:
Lufthansa uses Cheyennes for flight training before people get to fly the "real thing". Not exactly a bizjet, but larger than the Bonnies they use for initial training over in Arizona.
I've seen this Skyservice Learjet 35 a few times while landing at Toronto Intl Airport (YYZ), but I don't know whether or not it's used for crew training.
I can understand that these bizjets could be used for flying certain routes that the airline flies so that the pilots can learn about different ATC procedures while enroute, and practice the different arrival & departure procedures at their destinations, but when it comes to actual landings & takeoffs ..... what's the same? When it comes to cockpit layouts and aircraft systems what can they do? Perhaps nothing. Maybe all that type of training is only done in simulators and in the real airliners themselves.
I know that NASA uses a Gulfstream G IV (maybe a GV nowadays) to train it's Space Shuttle astronauts for approach and landing, but it's cockpit has be modified and has many of the identical Shuttle PFD's, MFD's, switches etc, to resemble the Shuttle's cockpit. Do you think that Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines has changed anything in their Learjet 45's cockpits?
Here's the cockpit of one of Cathay Pacific's Learjet 45's.
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
Hi guys.
Thanks for your replies.
> Jetguy, it's sometimes hard to believe that little aviation secret is true, but I'm sure it is. The first this that comes to my mind is wind, and how a certain level of wind speed & turbulence that could turn my world upside down in a little GA aircraft wouldn't even budge an airliner's nose off course by an inch!
The economical benefits of using bizjets for certain phases of an airline's flight training program makes perfect sense. Although, I suspect this doesn't include the phase of actually landing, since just the main landing gear struts on a 747 are probably taller than a Learjet 45's tail.
> Thanks for letting me /us know that Lufthansa uses Piper Cheyennes for some of their flight training. I LOVE those aircraft. Hopefully you will be buzzing around over Europe in one some day.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2083 times:
Chris,
Perhaps the biggest factor in how an airplane handles turblence is its wing loading or the number of pounds each square foot of wing has to support. In this regard, bizjets and airliners are basically quite comparable. When it comes to power loading (the number of pounds of thrust for each pound of aircraft weight), bizjets typically are significantly better - they usually have more thrust per pound of aircraft weight. From a pilot's point of view, that's what makes them so much fun to fly - YEEHAW ! (Oops, excuse me, I got a little carried away; but you get the point.) As far as the differences in landing, that's usually not a very big deal, a few landings is usually enough to allow you to figure out where the ground is - after that, they are just another airplane. One of my funniest experiences is when I was checking out one of my good friends (a retired Delta MD-11 captain) in a glider. He kept wanting to flair the glider 50' in the air. Everything is realitive.
Socalatc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 499 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
One of the main reason for the Lear's is to get the new pilots familiar with an all glass cockpit. As most new pilots are all used to steam gauges, I forgot the airline, but they converted a bunch of Citations 1's with a 5 tubs EFIS system to get the pilots used to the "glass". They use them for much more than that, but that is one reason.
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
Hello Jetguy.
Thanks for your explanations.
Your info caused a question to pop into my mind. Does the Turbulent Air Penetration Speed (V?) of an aircraft change as it's weight and wing loading changes, or does it remain constant?
I believe this airspeed is close to an aircraft's maneuvering airspeed (Va), which is usually marked on the airspeed indicator isn't it?
> I used to be a ramp rat at Toronto Intl (YYZ) for a corporate jet FBO. All the time, after marshalling a bizjet off our ramp so it could taxi for it's departure, if I had some free time I'd drive a tug down the taxiway that fed all the FBO's on the north side of YYZ, and watch it take off.
I love watching airliners takeoff, but, I really LOVE watching bizjets takeoff. Especially the loud ones like a Learjet 35. They look and sound like fighter jets during climbout!
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
Hello Socalatc.
Well, that's certainly a good point.
If you look at the cockpit photo I posted above of a Cathay Pacific Airways Learjet 45, you can see it's all glass with the usual steam gauges for backup.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
Chris,
To answer your question about Turbulent Air Penetration Speed...
It all depends on the plane; but yes, weight is normally a factor. On one of the bizjets that I fly the turbulent air penetration speed is listed as Va -10 knots and Va is a function of aircraft weight. On one of the other jets, the AFM lists turbulent air penetration speed as a function of altitude regardless of aircraft weight. I quess what I'm really saying is that the proper speeds are given in each aircraft's AFM and those are the speeds you use. You can't really come up with a number that you can carry from one type to another.
Flyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3823 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2053 times:
The Learjet 45's role is to help train Second Officers progressing to the rank of First Officer and for First Officers progressing to the rank of Captain."
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is a second officer? Is that like a relief pilot?
JETSTAR From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1447 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
In the 1970’s TWA used 4 engine Lockheed Jetstars for pilot training. What was different from all other airlines using business jets is that Lockheed modified both cockpits of these airplanes for TWA. One had the cockpit of a 727 and the other a 707. These modifications were done in a way that when TWA was finished using them, they could be returned back to the origional Jetstar cockpit.
Lockheed worked with Boeing hoping to sell these as inexpensive flight trainers instead of using the 727 or 707 for flight training. Most of the pilot’s initial flight training took place in the Jetstar and only the final training using the real airplane was needed before the pilots were certified. No other airlines bought Jetstars for flight training.
After full motion simulators were approved for training, these airplanes were no longer needed and were sold. One cockpit, the 727 was returned back to the original jetstar cockpit but the 707 cockpit stayed.
Some airlines have business jets for their own corporate use and to deliver parts. They used to be painted up the same as their airline cousins but now they look like any other business jet.
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1945 times:
Hi guys.
> Jetguy, Thanks for explaining that on some aircraft, the Turbulent Air Penetration Speed and Maneuvering Speed (Va) are a function of the aircraft's weight.
I pulled out my old Cessna 150 ground school handbook and blew the dust off it. It's based on a 1977 Cessna 150M model and has the same airspeeds (depending on weight) for both Va and turbulent air.
The maximum recommended turbulent air penetration speeds and Va speeds are .....
> JETSTAR, Thank You for your info about how TWA used 2 Jetstar bizjets in the 1970's for training their flight crews. It's pretty neat to learn that they had modified cockpits of a 727 & 707. It would be great to see photos of those cockpits.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (8 years 22 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
"I know that NASA uses a Gulfstream G IV (maybe a GV nowadays) to train it's Space Shuttle astronauts for approach and landing, but it's cockpit has be modified and has many of the identical Shuttle PFD's, MFD's, switches etc, to resemble the Shuttle's cockpit."
Its actually a heavily modified G-II...one of the more interesting modifications is that its thrust reversers, by design, are allowed to operate and routinely do operate in mid-flight during the steep dive that is typical of a Shuttle approach, to help keep the speed down...
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (8 years 19 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
One of the problems with using smaller jet aircraft for training 'large jet' crew was found out by Continental Airlines many years ago with a departure from a Colorado airport...Aspen I think.
The Sabreliner used for flight training experienced a thrust reverser deployment just after takeoff. Standard procedure in the NA265 was to reduce to idle thrust...but the PF was used to the B707, which required throttle advancement to near MCT...which was bad news for the Sabreliner, all were killed.
One must be VERY carefull using different jets for procedure training.
Best left to dedicated guys who KNOW what they are doing.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (8 years 16 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Aspen is certainly a "nasty" airport to have any type of problem. Late yesterday afternoon we flew in and out of there. It was VFR so, because of the high holiday weekend traffic, they dispensed with the Roaring Fork Visual and had everyone do straight-ins over the ridge. What a zoo! One jet on departure about a mile of off of the end of runway 33 with a sidestep to allow the jet on a 4 mile final to 15! Oh, I didn't mention that there was another jet in position and holding just waiting to released - prior to the arrival of the jet (now about 3 miles out!). This went on for the entire period that we were there.
411A brings up a VERY valid point. About the only airlines you see using small jets for initial training nowadays are the foreign carriers that do ab initio training. For most other carriers, most - if not all - transition training is done in simulators. There are "gotchas" in a lot of aircraft and you need to be careful when ever you transition into a new type. You need to be especially careful when you are maintaining currency in two or more types. A case in point. One of the jets that I fly you have to lift up on the power levers to get them over the gate into reverse thrust. The engines are shut down using fuel shut off switches at the base of the power lever console. The other jet that I fly has "piggy backs" on the power levers for reverse thrust and the engines are shut down by lifting a lever and pulling the power levers back into an idle-cutoff position. So what's the big deal? I've seen more than one transitioning pilot in the sim, "in the heat of the hunt", shut down both engines on roll out by going into idle-cutoff instead of reverse. These kind of mistakes aren't limited to jets - for many years, many Beech Bonanzas and light twins had non-standard (reversed) flap and gear handles. The twins also had non-standard engine controls - with the throttles in the center position instead of to the left. There have been a lot of airplanes that have had their landing gear retracted on the ground when the pilot inadvertantly grabbed the gear handle when s/he thought they were raising the flaps.
Mlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
Do these aforementioned carriers use the smaller jets also to train and successfully implement their policies on CRM? I would imagine a training flight on such an aircraft could help in developing management skills?
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
Soulman From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
In response to the initial question:
What type of training do airline pilots do in a bizjet like the Learjet 45 which has a maximum takeoff weight of just over 20,000 pounds to help prepare them to fly a monster like a 747-4 with a max takeoff weight of over 800,000 pounds?
When these cadets graduate most begin their job as a Second Officer on a 747 as a cruise pilot - they monitor the gauges whilst the Captain and F/O have a bite to eat (relatively speaking). They are not permitted to control the aircraft below 10'000ft. Obviously as time progresses they will move closer to the action (F/O) and will be put through the simulators accordingly.
The Learjet option is great like Jetguy has pointed out - it has many features which are comparable to those found in a Boeing or an Airbus. The idea of a glass cockpit in combination with real airline procedures (CRM being a major factor) gives the cadets a feel for what is to come. Plus, imagine throwing a cadet with 250 hours in Grobs and Senecas onto the flightdeck of a monster like the 747? A Learjet is probably the best option available for these young guns.
Fly a 747 at the Vmo of a Grob and you'll no doubt be eating dirt.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2776 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7086 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 499 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
